Novel Litigation Strategies Also on Trial in Kids’ Climate Suit

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Late last week, the Supreme Court lifted the stay on Juliana v. United States, a closely watched federal case that could create an unprecedented link between the government’s environmental policy and constitutional rights, if it proceeds to trial.

This case serves to illustrate two novel litigation strategies — the first that the plaintiffs are not non-governmental organizations (NGOs), but instead include 21 young individuals who claim their constitutional rights have been violated by the government’s policies on carbon dioxide emissions.

Second, the case is novel because plaintiffs are using the public trust doctrine instead of typical statutory law as a basis for claims. While public trust doctrine has a place in environmental law, it is unclear whether the Supreme Court will see fit to extend it to something more amorphous like climate change.

These legal theories have never before been tested — namely, that the plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection rights have been violated by the government’s policies toward climate change.

In this case, plaintiffs argue that the government has failed to protect public trust resources, specifically the atmosphere, for present and future generations. This theory, otherwise called “Atmospheric Trust Litigation,” is that the government has an affirmative duty to protect natural systems, because (1) resources are owned by all citizens under the public trust doctrine, (2) the atmosphere is one such resources kept in trust, and (3) the government is a “trustee,” thus has the responsibility to prevent future damage and repair past harms. In short, the theory attempts to create a link between the preservation of natural resources — soil, water, and now, air — and basic constitutional rights.

By contrast, in response to these arguments, the government contends that the executive and legislative branches of government are supposed to make decisions about environmental and energy policy — not federal courts. The differences in these two positions presents a level of drama not typical for environmental rulemakings and regulatory challenges.

Procedural Battles and Background

Just over a week ago, the government petitioned the Supreme Court for a stay and a writ of mandamus, which is essentially an order where a higher court orders a lower court to take, or refrain from taking, a specific action. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that, if granted, would have required the Oregon district court to dismiss the case altogether. The Supreme Court refused and denied the stay without prejudice.

But in its most recent order, the Supreme Court hinted that the government may still be able to get the writ of mandamus it has been seeking from the Ninth Circuit. Generally, mandamus may be issued when:

No other adequate means exists to attain the desired relief;

The party’s right to issuance of a writ is clear and undisputable;

The writ is appropriate under the circumstances.

In its order, the Court stated that “when mandamus relief is available in the court of appeals, pursuit of that option is ordinarily required.” The Court also noted that the three previous denials by the Ninth Circuit were without prejudice, and that some of the reasons for the denials might “no longer [be] pertinent.” Accordingly, the Court seemed to direct the Ninth Circuit to consider the following factors if the government petitions for another writ of mandamus:

Whether litigation has progressed such that a writ of mandamus might be appropriate;

Whether the legal issues have actually narrowed as the case has progressed;

Whether there is still a possibility for the government to pursue relief by ordinary dispositive motions.

Thus far, the government’s dispositive motions have failed to stop the lawsuit from moving forward. On October 15, U.S. District Judge Anne Aiken denied the government’s summary judgment motion and motion for judgment on the pleadings. The government’s earlier motion to dismiss was also denied.

The Supreme Court’s latest order seems to encourage the government to pursue yet another mandamus petition with the Ninth Circuit. If the Ninth Circuit decides against issuing a writ of mandamus, the lawsuit will be the first of its kind to ever go to trial.

Caitlin practices in multiple areas, but has a particular interest in environmental and energy law matters. She has experience drafting briefs, memoranda, and case pleadings, as well as managing discovery and other aspects of trial preparation. She makes it a priority to learn clients’ business goals and then track regulatory developments and industry trends to better serve their needs.

Prior to law school, Caitlin managed communications at a human rights organization in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Showalter's practice has focused on distilling complicated technical information into a format where it can be understood by decision makers. He has worked with experts in fields including medicine, economics, history, physical sciences, industrial hygiene, toxicology, environmental engineering and risk assessment.

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558 Telephone (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.